Upper Tribunal decisions in FCA cases

On 14 September 2026 the Upper Tribunal upheld the FCA’s decision to ban Crispin Odey from the financial services industry, finding he lacked integrity for deliberately frustrating an internal disciplinary investigation into repeated inappropriate behaviour towards female employees. The Tribunal upheld all five FCA allegations, including that he bullied and threatened executive directors, twice dismissed his firm’s executive committee to halt the disciplinary process, and lacked candour with the firm, its clients, investors and the FCA. The FCA’s proposed fine of £1.835m was reduced by the Tribunal to £1.53m.

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) issued a decision dated 12 June 2026 (published 5 August 2026) in the case Alec Finch and Robert Finch v The Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA had decided to prohibit the two (formerly senior figures at AFL Insurance Brokers Limited, later Ambon Brokers) after a High Court judgment found they misused client money to fund AFL’s business, created false financial records to mislead a buyer and others, and concealed a significant client money deficit. The FCA said it would have imposed fines of £121,200 on Alec Finch and £169,800 on Robert Finch but accepted verifiable evidence that any penalty would cause each serious financial hardship, and the regulator removed them from the industry.

Robert Finch was one of two individuals (a father and son) the FCA decided to ban after finding they had misused client money at AFL Insurance Brokers Limited and prepared false financial records to mislead a buyer, leaving the firm with a client money deficit. The FCA issued Decision Notices and noted it would have imposed a financial penalty of £169,800 on Robert Finch but did not impose any fine because he provided verifiable evidence of serious financial hardship; the case was the subject of an Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decision dated 12 June 2026 (published 5 August 2026).

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) published its decision in BriceAmery Capital Ltd v The Financial Conduct Authority, cited [2026] UKUT 00288 (TCC), on 30 July 2026. The FCA register records the decision as being handed down by Judge Anne Redston. I don’t currently have access to the full tribunal text or any contemporaneous press coverage in this session, so I cannot yet say what the tribunal actually found, whether any prohibition or financial penalty was imposed, or whether there are consequential remedies or appeals.

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the FCA’s decision to ban Heather Imogen Dunne from working in regulated financial services, finding she acted dishonestly (including by providing a back‑dated appointed representative agreement) and failed to take proper care when giving pension transfer advice. The Tribunal found that between April 2015 and June 2017 Ms Dunne advised about 92% of her clients to transfer out of defined‑benefit schemes (over £126m transferred) and concluded 18% of her clients received unsuitable advice. The FCA’s fines were upheld as appropriate but reduced by the Tribunal; Ms Dunne was fined and banned, and has the usual right to seek further appeal. The Tribunal published its decision on 27 July 2026 and the FCA issued a press release on 3 August 2026 confirming the bans and reduced penalties.

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the FCA’s decision to ban Richard Brian Fenech from working in financial services on 27 July 2026. The tribunal found he acted dishonestly by providing a backdated appointed representative agreement and failed to properly oversee adviser Heather Dunne, whose pension transfer work between April 2015 and June 2017 led to over £126m being transferred. The tribunal reduced the financial penalty to reflect its finding that 18% of Dunne’s clients received unsuitable advice and that only Fenech’s income from his relationship with Dunne should be counted when calculating his penalty. The tribunal’s decision was published on 27 July 2026 and the FCA issued final notices following that judgment.